are under threat of being rubbed out?
We had the Patriot Act which was introduced by Bush, it was to listen in on overseas calls coming into this country. The liberals were so upset over this calling it domestic spying.
Obama has continued this patriot act year after year and now to broaden the reach, he is now wanting to implement a way to read private citizen emails.
Is nothing off limits with an ever growing goverment?

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSURE OF CONTENT.
Section 2702(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code,
is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(3) a provider of electronic communication service, remote computing service, or geolocation information service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any governmental entity the contents of any communication described in section 2703(a), or any record or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer of such provider or service.’’

I just heard a story about this last week. 8000 personal gmails accounts were voluntarily given to the feds upon request. Technically the ISP can require a warrant before releasing personal emails of their clients, but often they will just release them if they don't want a struggle with the government.

They made a great analogy during the story. They said your email account is like your high school locker. You may store your stuff in that space, but the space belongs to someone else and they can access it whenever they want.

Brewman, anything this administration advocates is 100 percent against freedom and the constitution. So I'll believe just about anything I hear that's bad about liberals, because unfortunately and freighteningly it's almost all true.

I understand why they constructed the Partiot Act. To listen in on calls coming from overseas from known terrorists.
If they obtain emails from known terrorists abroad or even in this country, thats fine. But to just grab emails from citizens because of key words that happened to pop up because it might be going against the government. Thats wrong.

Brewman, anything this administration advocates is 100 percent against freedom and the constitution. So I'll believe just about anything I hear that's bad about liberals, because unfortunately and freighteningly it's almost all true.

Wow! Really? How's that koolaid taste?

First off, this is a bill written by a senator, it did not come from the Presidents administration.

Second, so you are so completely and totally convinced that everything the President or his administration is " 100 percent against freedom and the constitution" that you won't even bother to actually read the proposed bill and make your own judgments, you just believe as you're told to believe. No offence, but I think it's idiots that go along with that line of thinking that allows some of the horrible governments around the world to gain and maintain power. Once they can convince a majority of the people that the other side is always bad they no longer have to deal with facts, they can ignore them and dismiss anything they say as a cover for what they really think.

Once they can convince a majority of the people that the other side is always bad they no longer have to deal with facts, they can ignore them and dismiss anything they say as a cover for what they really think.

Off topic, but isn't this what the Democrats did for the past 4 years?

First off, this is a bill written by a senator, it did not come from the Presidents administration.

Second, so you are so completely and totally convinced that everything the President or his administration is " 100 percent against freedom and the constitution" that you won't even bother to actually read the proposed bill and make your own judgments, you just believe as you're told to believe. No offence, but I think it's idiots that go along with that line of thinking that allows some of the horrible governments around the world to gain and maintain power. Once they can convince a majority of the people that the other side is always bad they no longer have to deal with facts, they can ignore them and dismiss anything they say as a cover for what they really think.

If this administration was for the people and behind the constitution they would have notwent to the extent of stealing the election as they did. Creating a race war and war between the rich and the poor, encouraging voter fraud, need I go on? If the republican party went so far as to decieve the people to the extent as the democratic party did I would no longer show my support. I would be embarassed to even let others know that I support that type of behavior.
Don't get me wrong I do think that the democratic party stands up and fights for what they believe is the right thing to do. The republican party is getting weak in the way of not fighting back and standing up for what they think is the right thing to do.

If this administration was for the people and behind the constitution they would have notwent to the extent of stealing the election as they did. Creating a race war and war between the rich and the poor, encouraging voter fraud, need I go on? If the republican party went so far as to decieve the people to the extent as the democratic party did I would no longer show my support. I would be embarassed to even let others know that I support that type of behavior.

If this administration was for the people and behind the constitution they would have notwent to the extent of stealing the election as they did. Creating a race war and war between the rich and the poor, encouraging voter fraud, need I go on? If the republican party went so far as to decieve the people to the extent as the democratic party did I would no longer show my support. I would be embarassed to even let others know that I support that type of behavior.
Don't get me wrong I do think that the democratic party stands up and fights for what they believe is the right thing to do. The republican party is getting weak in the way of not fighting back and standing up for what they think is the right thing to do.

Romney did plenty himself to make it a war between rich and poor, and let people know he stood on the side of the rich. I heard stories that suggested that there was some funny business going on with the vote counts, but the apparent lack of any investigation leads me to believe that nothing sinister actually happened. Of course the same lack of investigation will lead you to believe that it's all part of the conspiracy to "steal the election".

Romney did plenty himself to make it a war between rich and poor, and let people know he stood on the side of the rich. I heard stories that suggested that there was some funny business going on with the vote counts, but the apparent lack of any investigation leads me to believe that nothing sinister actually happened. Of course the same lack of investigation will lead you to believe that it's all part of the conspiracy to "steal the election".

Romney conceded to Obama. The moment that happened the election was over. This is how the system works. Obama is president, although 1/2 the country did not vote for him and the majority responding to exit polls (even those who voted for Obama) were opposed to Obamacare.

The election is over. Quit whining about it. Hopefully the American people don't have 100% trust in politicians though, as they are mostly self-serving.

All it would take would be for one voter from one of those "100% Obama" districts to come forward and say they voted for Romney and I'm sure there would be an investigation. So far I have not heard of any such voter coming forward.

I think it's idiots that go along with that line of thinking that allows some of the horrible governments around the world to gain and maintain power. Once they can convince a majority of the people that the other side is always bad they no longer have to deal with facts, they can ignore them and dismiss anything they say as a cover for what they really think.

"The White House sharply escalated its attacks on Tuesday on Republican opponents of making Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice the next secretary of state, describing them as in the grips of a politically fueled "obsession" with incorrect "talking points" she used regarding the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya."

"The White House sharply escalated its attacks on Tuesday on Republican opponents of making Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice the next secretary of state, describing them as in the grips of a politically fueled "obsession" with incorrect "talking points" she used regarding the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya."